Thread

Community condemn Bedminster AI mural as 'insult' to artists

37 points · 28 comments · edward

gchamonlive · 1790177864 · focus · HN ↗
Art isn't supposed to be comfortable and it's uncomfortable for a good reason, what if this became a trend? Would it endanger the organic art scene? Can these coexist?
That we are discussing it shows that the mural, even though it's AI generated is performing as art should. Should we welcome all forms of art? If not, where do we draw the line? That's for me the most uncomfortable question.
1. happytoexplain · 1790180636 · focus · HN ↗
  It's a good question. I just don't personally believe it's a challenging one. I'm comfortable drawing the line at simple AI art ("simple" as in nothing beyond some hours spent prompting - for somebody who finds a creative way to take it beyond that, I'd come back to the question).
  1. gchamonlive · 1790182647 · focus · HN ↗
    So art with AI is only art if it took effort from the artist?
    happytoexplain · 1790349675 · focus · HN ↗
    I never mentioned the definition of art, though effort is indeed one of many interesting variables in the identity and perception of all creative endeavors (with the caveat that effort does not have to mean time or physical labor).
    You wrote:
    "Should we welcome all forms of art? If not, where do we draw the line?"
    You didn't ask if it was art. You asked about welcoming it. I gave my personal answer.
    If you'd like my opinion on the "is it art?" question, I gave a short version here: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821850">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49821850
    I might add another thought onto that post, which is, maybe rather than not being art, it's closer to being somebody else's art? Where "somebody" is an aggregate of other artists. Of course that's not quite right either. As I said in the linked post, it's just a semantic argument, which can be fun but isn't really interesting.
2. brendoelfrendo · 1790181007 · focus · HN ↗
  We are not uncomfortable with what the art is saying but with what the meta-narrative around the art is saying, and I think that's an important distinction. Sometimes context is an important part of artistic interpretation and expression, but this time around I think the discomfort is that human intention is being replaced by a machine.
  > If not, where do we draw the line?
  I don't find this question uncomfortable at all: art is art if and only if it was made by humans, end to end. Human thought informing human action resulting in a human-created work. If you involved an AI, it is not art; it is a facsimile of art. If you agree that conveying emotion and meaning is an important part of art, and I think you do since you highlighted that art can and sometimes should be uncomfortable, then I posit that AI "art" cannot be art because there is no feeling, emotion, or creativity involved in its creation. An AI can only attempt to mimic human expression based on its training while the AI itself is incapable of these things.
  1. gchamonlive · 1790182594 · focus · HN ↗
    > art is art if and only if it was made by humans, end to end
    I disagree with your definition of art. One can use AI as a reference and the end result will still be art because it'll carry execution technique and the subjective perception of the artist. Saying otherwise would be like saying that electronic music isn't music because it's a computer producing the sound waves.
    A better candidate would be "an object can be a work of art if and only if it wasn't made by machines end to end".
    brendoelfrendo · 1790188845 · focus · HN ↗
    Ha, that is a fair critique. Now, I do consider electronic music to be art; in that case, I consider the computer or synthesizer to be an instrument, and thus the creative output of a DAW is still the artist's creative output. There is definitely some sloppiness in how I defined my terms; unfortunately, I'm just not going to commit my afternoon to an iron-clad definition of art for an internet comment.
    gchamonlive · 1790189177 · focus · HN ↗
    I understand, and we need to have good faith to navigate wonky definitions, because impeccable definitions aren't a prerequisite for productive conversation.
    I think it's a spectrum. DJing can go from hitting play with someone else's recorded live set to sampling live from vynil and midi controllers and mixing with voice, doing loops and the likes.
    I think there is room for art in anything, including AI. Just like musicians like DJ Shadow managed to show it's perfectly possible to make great pieces using only sampling, I think we can go very far with AI generated art and still be able to call it art in good faith.
3. OhMeadhbh · 1790181365 · focus · HN ↗
  "Comfort implies art" is different from "art implies comfort."
  Which is to say, not all art is comfortable, but not all things that are not comfortable are art.
  It's perfectly fine for art to be comfortable. Stop gate-keeping.
  1. gchamonlive · 1790182335 · focus · HN ↗
    I never made this assessment, that's not an interpretation you can derive from my comment in good faith. I just commented that art isn't supposed to be comfortable, nowhere I said that all art is uncomfortable. The mural is however performing just like art. What if this was an original confirmed banksy?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.